So first, there's commitment. If you want to be a Superpower, then you have to be one. If you don't want to be a Superpower, well, the US president will be listened to as much as the comments of the Canadian Prime Minister is. — ssu

I think we have directly opposing viewpoints on what's best for the world. You think it's best for the US to be a global leader. I think it's best for the world to recognize the US as a heavily armed psychopath. In short, the difference between us is that you think the US is the good guys. I'm pretty sure they aren't.

You've got me wondering how many other non-Americans see things the way you do. Is it common?

Israel basher! — Mikie

Au contraire, morality works like this: in the decades long conflict of Israel vs Palestine, when Israel attacks and kills Palestinian civilians, that is good because they are the good guys but when the Palestinians do the same, that is bad because they are the bad guys. If you want to know whether killing innocent people is good or not, you need do no more than look at what people they are. If they are "Palestinian", killing them is good. If they are "Israeli", killing them is bad. If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. This is also very convenient because the IDF does much more killing so there is much more good killing than bad killing and the world is good and right. If you disagree with any of this, you are indeed irrational and simply hate the good guys. In fact, you are probably a bad guy, like Hamas.

(Someone once entertained the subversive idea that the good guys were the innocent civilians on both sides caught up in this cycle of senseless violence and the bad guys were the Israeli and Gazan leaderships perpetuating it in their respective ways, but that someone was called an anti-semite and taken out with white phosphorous, so cartoon world is once again perfect).

IOW, I'm not saying I support Hamas, but...

My first intervention on this recent iteration of this thread was to call Hamas butchers and animals. But of course the strategy of you and other weak-minded fools on here is to try to smear any criticism of Israel with support for Hamas no matter how clear the condemnation of that group. It's so insipid and pathetic, I can't imagine it working on anyone with any degree of intelligence. That you can is all your problem. You've proven yourself to be entirely out of your depth here.

I think we have directly opposing viewpoints on what's best for the world. You think it's best for the US to be a global leader. — frank

Actually not! Again I'm not saying that.

If the US wants to be a Superpower, then it has to do something, or otherwise just stick to a more passive stance! That's a big if.

If it's not the global leader, then take the advice of Ron Paul. He's pretty consistent in how America would be. And the US of course could be what it was in the 19th Century, a regional power. Just being the largest economy doesn't matter so much politically in the global arena.

But sorry to say, Americans don't actually want that. America cannot be a huge Switzerland, which would mind it's own business yet be prosperous. Too much of your wealth and prosperity comes from the position of being that sole Superpower. Many Americans think that it comes just from their sheer own exceptionality and awesomeness, but that isn't so as the whole global system starting from the role of the dollar in international trade and finance has been tailored for the US. And when you look at those institutions and why other countries have accepted them as they are now, the answer lies in the military might of the Superpower behind it all. Or otherwise, why on Earth would other Western countries accept the US dollar having the status in international trade and finance as now and not use a basket of the largest currencies? It obviously gives the US the ability print as much money as itself it can and have others pay for it. Why would they give that kind of advantage to a competitor? Because you are just so awesome?

In short, the difference between us is that you think the US is the good guys. I'm pretty sure they aren't. — frank

Any state being the good guys or the bad guys is naive in my view. Just why is it so hard to accept that nations can have good policies and they can have bad policies, even destructive ones. They can be both perpetrators and victims at the same time.

Hence actual policies matter.

Hence you saying that the US is "a heavily armed psychopath" is simply throwing the towel. The US has to engage with the World as the US is an important part of the World. How you do it matters.

For example, it's already quite evident what would happen if the US would walk out of NATO. UK, France and Germany simply would have to create new defense pact, which is likely easy when they are already in one. Russia would have immense leverage in Europe as it would be the single most powerful country in Europe. For example the UK Parliament has already discussed this hypothetical thanks to Trump.

Or what if you go back from Asia? What happens if you leave South Korea, leave Japan, null defense agreements with the Asian countries.

Simple:

China simply fills that void. South Korea, Japan simply have to rearrange their defense posture either arming themselves to the teeth starting with nuclear weapons or then choose "Finlandization" and embrace those warm ties with China.

Ok. I don't really understand what you're saying at all. I did try, though. :smile:

Trying to describe how things work.

But if your view is that there are good guys and bad guys and that's that, I cannot help you.

But if your view is that there are good guys and bad guys and that's that, I cannot help you. — ssu

No, I thought you were saying American foreign policy is a trainwreck because the US is in decline in terms of global politics. That would amount to saying that the US should be globally influential. I guess I just misunderstood your point, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

I mean, the US is in decline. No political analyst disagrees with that. The US has a strong isolationist streak. No historian disagrees with that. Those two facts together add up to: the US isn't going to be the lone superpower going forward.

If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. — Baden

Yes— because the IDF kills babies with good intentions. That makes it a lesser evil. I think I’m getting it now.

That would amount to saying that the US should be globally influential. — frank

If not the U.S. then who? I would be fine with a strong UN that could fill the role of the U.S., and defend countries like Taiwan, Ukraine, Poland, S. Korea, etc. but that's not realistic. So, if the U.S. takes its football and goes home, China will try and fill the power vacuum. I would rather have the U.S. run the show than China, wouldn't you?

I would rather have the U.S. run the show than China, wouldn't you? — RogueAI

I don't care.

jesus, I've only pointed that out like 50 times here, which is why the change in the Hamas charter in 2017 is such an important change.

No, I thought you were saying American foreign policy is a trainwreck because the US is in decline — frank

Let me remind you: I said that the Foreign Policy in The Middle East has been a train wreck.

Where else have two former allies turned to be in the Axis-of-evil after revolutions? Where has the US fought it's longest wars post-1945? And where even today the US military is basically still fighting a low intensity war and is under attack?

In Europe?
In Asia?
In Latin America?

Well, then the 51st time... :wink:

But I think that the Hamas charter isn't so important now. Good luck if Israel still can negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

Where else have two former allies turned to be in the Axis-of-evil after revolutions? Where has the US fought it's longest wars post-1945? And where even today the US military is basically still fighting a low intensity war and is under attack?

In Europe?
In Asia?
In Latin America? — ssu

So now it's a trainwreck because of extended involvement in the region most of the US's oil comes from? I give up.

So now it's a trainwreck because of extended involvement in the region most of the US's oil comes from? I give up. — frank

Most of our oil no longer comes from the Middle East.

"In 2018, the impact of U.S. shale oil production was readily apparent. Crude oil imports to the U.S. had fallen to 9.9 million BPD, and the share from the Persian Gulf had fallen to less than 1.6 million BPD (15.9%).

Canada is now the most important source of U.S. oil imports, supplying 4.3 million BPD in 2018 (43% of the total)." -- from Forbes

I think that means we probably need to bomb the hell out of Montreal.

Not anymore no. But there was a 6 year window where everybody did fuck all. But then even when 5,000+ kids are killed... So who am I kidding.

So now it's a trainwreck because of extended involvement in the region most of the US's oil comes from? I give up. — frank

Again you got it wrong. And doesn't the most of US's oil that it uses come from North America? I think @BC is correct. So I don't understand your point at all.

Anyway, In those other places there hasn't been such a train wreck.

The US isn't fighting an low intensity insurgency in Latin America, the Far East or in Europe.
The US isn't being attacked by drones in Latin America, the Far East or in Europe.

That's why I'm saying that the train wreck has happened in the Middle East!

NOT IN OTHER PLACES!!!

Perhaps we shouldn't comment each other as there simply is no way we can understand each other.

So I give up too.

Well, as you made the argument about genocide earlier, I remember answering that the bodycount (or the ethnic cleansing) has to be a higher number. That was months ago.

Well, now the death toll is going in your way quite obviously. That people are starting to starve tells a lot also.

And incidents like the shooting of the hostages that had escaped Hamas trying to surrender to IDF forces by waving white flags tells a lot. Of course it must have been a trap: why would otherwise any unarmed person waving a white flag try to approach Israeli soldiers, if it wasn't to pose a deadly threat to the Israeli soldiers. So obviously the Israeli soldiers had to shoot the men! :death:

Shoot everything that moves is seems a safe bet. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of blue-on-blue incidents happening in Gaza. Every fifth killed in action seems to be a friendly fire accident. (At least if we believe that the official statistics are truthful.)

(Times of Israel, Dec 18th 2023) Of the 105 Israeli soldiers killed to date in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s ground offensive against Hamas, which began in late October, 20 were killed by so-called friendly fire and other accidents, according to new data released by the IDF on Tuesday.

Thirteen of the soldiers were killed by friendly fire due to mistaken identification in airstrikes, tank shelling, and gunfire.

One soldier was killed by gunfire that was unintended to hit them, and another two were killed by accidental misfires.

Two soldiers were killed in incidents involving armored vehicles running over troops.

And two soldiers were killed by shrapnel, including from explosives set off by Israeli forces.

The IDF has assessed that myriad reasons have led to the deadly accidents, including the large number of forces operating in Gaza, communication issues between forces, and soldiers being tired and not paying attention to regulations.

Well, as you made the argument about genocide earlier, I remember answering that the bodycount (or the ethnic cleansing) has to be a higher number. That was months ago.

Well, now the death toll is going in your way quite obviously. That people are starting to starve tells a lot also. — ssu

The genocide has been going on for decades. Where are all the Palestinian sea side villages and cities? Their life and culture are being strangled by the occupation with this very goal: to make an independent Palestinian state impossible.

Unfortunately, people underestimate Likud voters and members. They are quite frankly insane murderous idiots on par with Saddam and the like. They stand exactly for what Hamas stood for until 2017 but then for Jews and with the unfortunate circumstance they actually have political power and weapons. Even their tactics are the same. Terror.

Meanwhile some of the posters here keep insisting the Palestinians are like the Nazis and this is some kind of existential struggle. It is, of course, but not for Israel. It's been informative who here has kept defending this insanity. God save their souls.

It is, of course, but not for Israel. It's been informative who here has kept defending this insanity. God save their souls. — Benkei

This is the worst of the gaslighting. That these Hamas militants with their tiny rockets, rifles, and hang gliders are a real military threat (even an existential one!) to a nuclear powered proxy of the world's superpower that will only accept their complete subjugation or displacement and actually has the means to achieve that. Analagous to Trump claiming the election is stolen while trying to steal it himself.

Anyway, Hamas's unique combination of strategic idiocy and murderousness combined with Israel's opportunism and utter lack of restraint = the end of Gaza. Seems the Israelis feel they won't get this chance again and I can't see them letting it slip away.

More good stuff from Haaretz. Sorry, full articles behind pay wall but it's worth noting there are plenty of moderate and sensible voices within Israel who don't tow the government line even in a time of war.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-18/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israel-killed-thousands-of-children-in-gaza-how-can-so-many-israelis-remain-indifferent/0000018c-788c-d55c-a7cc-fb8edb100000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-19/ty-article/.premium/dont-let-bibis-bluff-fool-you-israel-is-heading-toward-full-reoccupation-of-gaza/0000018c-7e2f-de44-a9be-7fbfafef0000

quotes *liberal leftist newspaper filled with lies*. And the fools have a reason not to listen.

Au contraire, morality works like this: in the decades long conflict of Israel vs Palestine, when Israel attacks and kills Palestinian civilians, that is good because they are the good guys but when the Palestinians do the same, that is bad because they are the bad guys. If you want to know whether killing innocent people is good or not, you need do no more than look at what people they are. If they are "Palestinian", killing them is good. If they are "Israeli", killing them is bad. If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. This is also very convenient because the IDF does much more killing so there is much more good killing than bad killing and the world is good and right. If you disagree with any of this, you are indeed irrational and simply hate the good guys. In fact, you are probably a bad guy, like Hamas. — Baden

This a caricature of your opponent's position, claiming that only good can be seen in their own behavior and evil in the other's. The caricature of your position is that you can't see good or evil anywhere, but just points of view, as if no particular way of life is more defensible than the other. I'd suspect there are none here who would choose to live in a Palestinian controlled country over an Israeli controlled one, and certainly not our mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives, and especially not those who might not subscribe to traditional male/female roles. Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what one might expect in terms of justice and equality when comparing one country to the next.

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. To the extent you accept or reject this notion of exceptionalism will likely color your view on how aggressively you defend those values versus how aggressively you declare it imperialistic and try to quash it.

In any struggle, large or small, the ones who bear the brunt of the conflict are always the most vulnerable. The children in their beds and women walking about were the first attacked, and now it's the poorest and least able to protect themselves that are being harmed. War is a horrible thing, but this war wasn't started by Israel and it most certainly wasn't started on October 7.

This is the worst of the gaslighting. That these Hamas militants with their tiny rockets, rifles, and hang gliders are a real military threat (even an existential one!) to a nuclear powered proxy of the world's superpower that will only accept their complete subjugation or displacement and actually has the means to achieve that. Analagous to Trump claiming the election is stolen while trying to steal it himself. — Baden

If your opponents have overstated the threat, here you have understated it. If Israel did not have the iron dome, it would be showered with rockets daily and be unlivable. The hang gliders were actual militants brought over as an act of war by their accepted government. You understate this threat and act as if this was a handful of thugs who could have been quickly eliminated, but this has been going on for decades, with backing of other governments, and it poses a real threat to the citizens to live a livable life, reasonably free from fear of death, burning, and rape. That is the purpose of terrorism, to destablize, to ruin, and evoke fear.

Hamas has an intricate system of underground tunnels designed for no purpose other than attacking Israel. They use every dollar they get to build tunnels and rockets instead of building infrastructure for their people. Gaza is a military base on Israel's Western border whose primary objective is the eradication of Israel. That they can't acheive victory is just their unfortunate reality and is not the result of lack of effort. They aren't just a handful of miscreants who just need a bit of understanding and appeasment, and it's not reasonable to believe Israel will just let them exist and accept that every now and again they'll be terrorized.

I'd suspect there are none here who would choose to live in a Palestinian controlled country over an Israeli controlled one — Hanover

If a Palestinian-controlled country existed, this would be fair. But since it doesn’t, there’s nothing to compare it to. Would I want to live in Gaza? Of course not. But not because of Palestinians.

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

It’s hard to believe this is still admitted to so freely.

We’re superior in “every way possible” here in the West. Yeah, I guess if one really believes this, then it’s possible to justify killing thousands of children — in defense of those superior values, of course.

If a Palestinian-controlled country existed, this would be fair. But since it doesn’t, there’s nothing to compare it to. Would I want to live in Gaza? Of course not. But not because of Palestinians. — Mikie

Would you choose to live in Egypt or Israel.

It’s hard to believe this is still admitted to so freely.

We’re superior in “every way possible” here in the West. Yeah, I guess if one really believes this, then it’s possible to justify killing thousands of children — in defense of those superior values, of course. — Mikie

What's hard to believe is that you don't think you can say it out loud that your society is better than others.

It's not possible to justify killling thousands of children if one of the ways we're superior is that we don't kill thousands of children to impose our superior values. There is a difference between imposing and defending. The children were killed because Hamas declared war on Israel and its values and put them in harm's way.

This a caricature of your opponent's position — Hanover

Satire to be exact and much deserved.

That is the purpose of terrorism, to destablize, to ruin, and evoke fear. — Hanover

And Israel is doing a very comprehensive job at this. Who's more destabilized, ruined, and fearful? Over a million Gazans, most of them children, with inadequate food, water, and shelter, being bombed daily including on routes Israel is telling them are safe, knowing that even white flags can't save them from being designated legitimate targets or the 99% of Israeli citizens suffering no such deprivations? Honestly, I feel like you constantly make arguments that undermine your own position and I can't make sense of why you don't see that. You've inadvertently justified Hamas's attacks with your right to defend argument combined with your justifications for killing civilians and now you've demonstrated that the IDF are no less deserving of the label "terrorists" than Hamas. If you would just remove yourself from the situation and see it as group A vs group B and focus on the actions of each, I think you could come up with a coherent position but you won't do that. Everything is coloured with the fact that you will support Israel no matter what. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.

Anyway, yes, I can agree that a Hamas government would be awful but probably no worse than, say, Saudi Arabia which is a country that is protected and coddled by the U.S. because... oil.

And this:

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. To the extent you accept or reject this notion of exceptionalism will likely color your view on how aggressively you defend those values versus how aggressively you declare it imperialistic and try to quash it. — Hanover

has me scratching my head. Really, you need to read this again, consider the implications, and potentially rephrase it so you don't sound like some Victorian "white man's burden" carrier. Otherwise, be prepared to get your ass satired off. I mean, dude...

It's not possible to justify killling thousands of children if one of the ways we're superior is that we don't kill thousands of children to impose our superior values. There is a difference between imposing and defending. — Hanover

Have you considered the options for defending the value of civility that don't involve bombing schools and designated safe routes, shooting white flag carriers, and pulling the plug on newborn babies in incubators? Because those things don't seem all that civil. It's almost like they're the opposite of civility... It's almost like war crimes do not constitute superior values but are barbaric and something we should be against. Right?